Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forest Service officials close all California national forests

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#141

Post by cartoonworld »

wrycoder wrote: post #110
amluto wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California problems may well be more due to forest mismanagement and PG&E issues than global warming. But 0.14C/decade is not “minimal” in any useful sense — it’s severely problematic.

That’s 1.5 C per century. Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in…

You are mentioning these geological time scales such as 15,000 years ago, but those figures representing delta are derived from a 42 year period.

What is the delta if you account for the temperatures relating to any significant change in human consumption as opposed to this period which is the only one that coincides with fuel efficiency standards and increased environmental enforcement?

Selecting a very small time period that does not include the industrial revolution, large scale construction (New deal public works, highways) operations, world wars, nuclear energy, adoption of mechanized logistics & transportation, any time at all with unrestricted emissions, etc is nearly useless for analysis.

Why should the delta during 1979-2021 be representative of the overall climatology when the dataset appears to be barely large enough to even begin making any analysis?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#142

Post by COGlory »

yupper32 wrote: post #137
protomyth wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking Yellowstone for example For all park visitors combined, the chances of being injured by a grizzly bear are approximately 1 in 2.7 million visits . So very good odds. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/injuries.htm

Surely being in a very populated area of the park lessens the chance greatly. Which would mean 1 in 2.7 million visits isn't accurate for what they would be doing.

I'd guess it raises the odds. You don't want them used to people. Especially not associating people with the presence of food.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#143

Post by nradov »

bsder wrote: post #59
pokstad wrote: post #3

Perfect timing for Newsom

It is what it is. Part of leading the world's sixth largest economy is that the scale of your disasters is also bigger. I'm surprised it wasn't done before this as you really don't want to have to do evacuations of tourists on top of your evacuations of residents. However, most vacationers/tourists are done as school has restarted in most places (for better or worse). So, this isn't likely to impact voting much. As a…

The scale of forest fires in California has little to do with the scale of our state economy. If our economy was smaller we wouldn't necessarily have fewer wildfires.

The recall election costs $276M. To put that in perspective it's about 0.1% of the state annual budget.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#144

Post by montagg »

kaycebasques wrote: post #134
Johnny555 wrote: post #7

And they just evacuated the entire town of South Lake Tahoe. I hope the town survives. https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/more-evacuation-order... https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/lake-tahoe-residents-... https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/Caldor-F...

My family has a cabin up there. Grandpa bought the land in the 50s and finally built on it in the 70s. Always imagined it would be there. Will be very strange if that's suddenly not true. Of course it's the way of all things but it's different when it's firsthand.

Everything is renting eventually.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#145

Post by olivermarks »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #115
olivermarks wrote: post #95

The Reasons Behind California’s Wildfire | Lacy Schoen https://youtu.be/GL1Tnn5u6ng

That video is produced by the Epoch Times. From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times > The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement. > The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation. In 2020, The New York Times called it…

So what? The person who is being interviewed is a California forestry expert with years of experience. https://www.nationalforests.org/who-we-are

The NYT is owned by the Sulzberger family, Time magazine is owned by Marc Benioff, the Washington Post by Bezos. If you dislike any of those people (some of whom are very closely affiliated with the DNC) does that make you refuse to look at anything they produce?!

There is now overwhelming evidence academic environmentalists have done catastrophic damage to the west through refusal to allow fuel clearance.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#146

Post by ummonk »

mistrial9 wrote: post #119
gorwell wrote: post #111

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

"we also found that the state's fire prevention work overall dropped by half last year" that is utterly not true by any stretch of the words .. it is literally political theater hit piece. see for yourselves... https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/13/governor-newsom-signs-land... https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/press-publications/ the claim is that a particular State of Calif, Dept of Forestry perhaps, program was supposed to thi…

Those links don’t really address the allegations.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#147

Post by klodolph »

guyzero wrote: post #139
rch wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not make it clear that people building structures in fire-prone areas are on their own, and should design appropriately?

I'm not sure there's an appropriate design for something to survive a major forest fire.

That’s right. Most people have not ever seen large-scale fires and don’t know how powerful they are. As a fire grows larger, it grows in intensity and spreads faster.

A campfire needs tending or it goes out. A bonfire will just burn until it runs out of fuel. A house fire will quickly turn into an inferno. Forest fires are hopefully like nothing you’ve ever seen—the sheer power of them is staggering.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#148

Post by OneEyedRobot »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #88
maxerickson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the insurance thing work? (my broad understanding is that property insurance is a relatively functional market where they won't underwrite a policy that doesn't make sense)

Insurers aren't perfect. For example, the Northridge earthquake was so expensive it caused insurance companies to exit the California earthquake insurance market. Now the state provides earthquake insurance with high deductibles. I wouldn't be surprised to see wildfires go a similar route in California if the situation isn't resolved.

I keep waiting for the insurance war that will break out due to 'managed retreat' by the Coastal Commission.

As someone else said, it's easy to have either extremely high insurance rates or unavailable insurance if you live in the wrong area on someone's map. The result was FAIR plans with add-ons from insurance companies.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#149

Post by nrclark »

burlesona wrote: post #39
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

The US National Forrest and Calfire have been on the losing side of this fire so far. All the technology that produces memes that spread across the globe in seconds and launches and lands orbital rockets flawlessly cannot stop this fire. This has been a dry summer which can be attributed to global warming. I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. We need to think of solutions to fires like t…

As a thought experiment, I wonder what it would cost to build a European village scale town for 22k people (the population of SLT) and then literally build a moat around it as a firebreak.

Moats have a tendency to evaporate unless you keep them full. I could see it getting expensive.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#150

Post by spaetzleesser »

tdhz77 wrote: post #29
COGlory wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go north. Montana, Idaho, etc. Wind River range is absolutely breathtaking. Just be grizzly aware.

You had me until the last part about the grizzlies.

the drive there is probably the dangerous part compared to grizzlies.
Post reply on HN